Department of Water Resources
California Water News
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
August 24, 2009
4. Water Quality –
Cleaning up at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
L.A. Times
Local harbors going greener
L.A. Daily News
Volunteers pick up trash along the L.A. River
L.A. Times
State should aid clean water push
Sacramento Bee
Health concerns grow over major weed killer
San Diego Union-Tribune
San Jose City camp water is tainted
San Jose Mercury News
Guest view: Why clarity matters at Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Daily Tribune
Ocean task force holds Alaska hearing on better stewardship
L.A. Times
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cleaning up at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
L.A. Times-8/23/09
By Ronald D. White
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are so busy that they move more cargo than the next five largest U.S. ports combined. They're so efficient that they process more international trade in one month than most North American harbors handle in an entire year.
Now the friendly rivals are leading the way into unexpected waters: attracting, testing and funding cutting-edge technology to reduce emissions and fuel consumption at the ports.
Even as their revenues declined and their budgets shrank in the worst global recession in more than 60 years, the twin ports have become accidental venture capitalists of sorts in the world of green technology.
In the last two years, the two ports and their partners have handed out nearly $40 million to stimulate the development of devices and systems that at first glance might seem a bit wacky, such as a pollution-sucking apparatus placed over a ship's smokestack that looks a little like an old-fashioned bonnet hair dryer gone super-sized. Port officials say they have been contacted by firms in 170 countries that hope to sell ways to reduce pollution and energy consumption by ships, trucks, trains and heavy equipment.
"Individual ports are working with their vendors to try new things, but I'm not aware of another port that has a program like Los Angeles and Long Beach," said Meredith Martino, manager of government relations and environmental policy for the American Assn. of Port Authorities. "They have come up with a systematic way of testing new ideas."
Port money has helped develop:
* A system that allows docked ships to run onboard lights and air conditioning using electricity and the equivalent of giant extension cords rather than relying on pollution-creating diesel fuel.
* An electric truck capable of hauling 60,000-pound cargo containers at a top speed of 40 mph, a feat accomplished not with advanced battery technology but by wiring together an array of forklift batteries. New, longer-range diesel batteries are being tested.
* The world's first diesel-electric hybrid tugboat, built for Foss Maritime Co. of Seattle, that will work local waters using less fuel and emitting fewer pollutants.
The ports' development efforts, much of them funneled through the Technology Advancement Program, were launched as part of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, adopted in late 2006. In partnership with other agencies, the ports, using budgets derived largely from lease payments, don't take an ownership position in the companies, instead providing seed money in exchange for guarantees that the technology will be used locally.
Experts say the two ports are putting to rest the notion that environmental regulation is bad for business, contending that green technology will provide the next leap in new jobs and revenue for the state's economy.
The ports are becoming "very important contributors for a new kind of innovation," said David Roland-Holst, a professor at the UC Berkeley Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability.
"The next knowledge-intensive technology sector is going to be energy efficiency," Roland-Holst said. "They can help revolutionize traditional practices around the world while addressing climate change, the most momentous environmental issue of our time."
The two ports have a powerful incentive to nurture new technology, said Daniel J.B. Mitchell, a UCLA professor emeritus of management and public policy.
"They were built when no one was worried about pollution," Mitchell said. "Now they are surrounded by big cities. If they are to continue to function as ports, they have to deal with the problems of air quality."
The mayors of Los Angeles and Long Beach say they prefer to view it as an opportunity.
"We believe that as we build awareness about climate change, we have to show the public that there are new economic opportunities that come with cleaning the ports," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said. "We have decided to focus on economic development around the port and its maritime activities, and we are moving faster than any other big city in America."
Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster said the ports "may never be as big as the movie industry or the defense industry, but when you start down the path to improve, people see that as a business opportunity. How can you meet the same goals, but in a way that is cleaner, faster and maybe less expensive?"
The development program has been maintained even though both ports have implemented some of the most severe budget cuts in recent memory because of the sharp decline in cargo traffic from the global recession. Port officials have acknowledged that long-planned expansion efforts hinge on reducing the effects of their pollution-spewing activities.
So far, the two ports, in collaboration with the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have agreed to fund 14 projects, many of which involve technologies developed by West Coast companies.
The ports are receiving international recognition for their technology investments. The best example is the system used by both ports when ships turn off their diesel engines and plug into shore-side electrical grids to reduce pollution.
The system's publicly available specifications have been approved by the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission, two standards-setting organizations based in Geneva, said Eric Caris, assistant director of marketing for the Port of Los Angeles.
"It provides a guideline. It specifies the voltage and the rating of the power cables and the connectors, the number of cables and deals with all of the safety specifications," Caris said.
Other programs include the development of liquefied natural gas vehicles that would replace diesel-powered trucks at port container terminals; a flywheel technology that would capture energy from the action of yard cranes and convert it to power to reduce diesel emissions; and a high-performance truck engine that would operate at 2010 emissions standards.
The technology development program has brought jobs. At Balqon Corp., the Harbor City company that produced the ports' first electric truck in February with $527,000 from the Port of Los Angeles and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, employment has jumped. The company, founded in 2005, has grown from a few engineers to 15 full-time workers and three part-timers as the manufacturing operation gears up.
The L.A. port has signed on for 25 heavy-duty trucks at a cost of $5.7 million. Balqon Chief Executive Balwinder Samra said he hoped to market the technology to railroads and others, paying the port a royalty for each truck sold to another buyer.
The process under which all new technology is considered operates so seamlessly across the various agencies that officials of both ports are in demand at seminars across the country to talk about how they transformed a nightmarish and disorganized system.
In the past, there was no formal process for pre-screening proposals, forcing port officials to sit through long, unproductive presentations, said Kevin Maggay, an environmental specialist at the Port of Los Angeles.
Now, he said, officials of both ports meet every six weeks with representatives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board and EPA.
"It's much better to evaluate the technology before we talk to them. Now, we funnel them all through a process that is legal and transparent. We're very proud of what we have done," Maggay said.
Richard Steinke, executive director of the Port of Long Beach, said companies were responding "to the research they can get done and the funding they can get by coming to our ports. We have a developed a pretty cool tech incubator, and we're seeing a lot of exciting things come about as a result of these efforts."#
Local harbors going greener
L.A. Daily News-8/24/09
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have become a magnet for the testing and development of technologies aimed at moving more cargo with less pollution.
In the past two years, the ports and their partners have handed out nearly $40 million for the development of devices and systems, such as a pollution-reducing hood for a ship's smokestack, a Los Angeles newspaper reported.
Port officials told the newspaper they have been contacted by firms in 170 countries that hope to sell ways to reduce pollution and energy consumption by ships, trucks, trains and heavy equipment.
"Individual ports are working with their vendors to try new things, but I'm not aware of another port that has a program like Los Angeles and Long Beach," said Meredith Martino, manager of government relations and environmental policy for the American Association of Port Authorities. "They have come up with a systematic way of testing new ideas."
Among the investments that port officials hope will pay off is:
A "cold-ironing" system that enables ships at port to hook into shore power and turn off diesel-powered generators;
An electric truck capable of hauling 60,000-pound cargo containers at speeds up to 40 mph, a feat accomplished by wiring together an array of forklift batteries;
And the world's first diesel-electric hybrid tugboat, built for Foss Maritime Co. of Seattle, that will work local waters using less fuel and emitting fewer pollutants.
Many of the projects were funneled through the Technology Advancement Program and started as part of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, adopted in late 2006.
The twin ports, in collaboration with the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have agreed to fund 14 projects, many of which involve technologies developed by West Coast companies.
Other programs include the development of liquefied natural gas vehicles that would replace diesel-powered trucks at port container terminals; a flywheel technology that would capture energy from the action of yard cranes and convert it to power to reduce diesel emissions; and a high-performance truck engine that would operate at 2010 emissions standards, it was reported.#
http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_13190919?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com
Volunteers pick up trash along the L.A. River
L.A. Times-8/23/09
By Jason Song
A group of about 150 volunteers gathered Saturday to clear a portion of the Los Angeles River in Van Nuys. Among their finds: lots of plastic grocery bags, hundreds of cigarette butts, a baseball and, at least for some, a newfound appreciation for the waterway.
"You should go over there. It's really pretty," said Kiya Villareal, a 16-year-old from Sherman Oaks who was there with her family. "They have bamboo and water."
The event was organized by the Friends of the Los Angeles River and underwritten by a $50,000 donation from Aquarius Spring, a bottled water branch of the Coca-Cola Co.; it supplements the Friends of the Los Angeles River's annual clean-up.
Jon Mukri, general manager of the city's Recreation and Parks Department, said his department has never had the funding for such work.
"You're bringing life to a river that was dead when I was a kid," he told the volunteers as they donned gloves, picked up large blue trash bags and headed into the river.
Many of the volunteers had participated in previous clean-ups and expressed some dismay at seeing so much debris. At an event in May that covered a much greater area, volunteers gathered more than 20 tons of trash, according to the Friends of the Los Angeles River, but there was plenty of debris scattered around Saturday's cleanup site, just off Balboa Avenue.
"It mostly frustrates me," said Melissa Federowicz, 27, of Studio City, who had already filled up half a bag with trash and was tugging at some buried plastic by the bank of the river. "This is the life of the city and there's trash everywhere."
Plastics, especially grocery sacks, seemed to make up the majority of the collected debris.
"It makes me believe in reusable bags even more," said Lorraine Toledo, a quality assurance manager for Coca-Cola who traveled from her home in the Inland Empire.
For others it was a chance to have some family time. April and Anthony Quintero gathered their four children, including Kiya Villareal, to come to the event.
Anthony Quintero said he had heard about the event from an e-mail and thought it would be good to get his brood out of bed early.
"These kids are lazy," he said as his wife rolled her eyes.
"They are not," she countered.
April Quintero said the sight of trash along the road and in the river made her angry and she wanted to give her family a sense of civic duty and pride. "I try to explain to them that this is your neighborhood. If you don't take care of it, who will?"
Kiya and her siblings scrambled through the underbrush, gathering items both man-made and natural. "Hey, look what I found," said Gabe, 5, sneaking up on Kiya and thrusting part of a butterfly wing into her face as she shrieked in surprise and ducked.
Family members made their way down the bank, eventually ending up where a grove of bamboo grew by a peaceful bend in the river. At that point, all of their sacks were full and the family took them back to the collection site.
"When people put their time and sweat into cleaning up the river, especially kids, it gives me a lot of hope," said Mukri, the park district manager.
The volunteers gathered about 1,800 pounds of trash, according to the Friends of the Los Angeles River.#
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-river23-2009aug23,0,2235391,print.story
State should aid clean water push
Sacramento Bee-8/24/09
Editorial
In Galt and South Lake Tahoe, residents are drinking arsenic with their tap water. Traces of the naturally occurring toxic chemical have leached from old mines, rocks and orchards into groundwater, reaching levels that violate state and federal safety standards.
In dozens of tiny towns that dot the Central Valley, residents regularly sip dangerous levels of nitrates with their water. The chemical comes from fertilizers or fecal matter that washes into the soil from broken septic tanks, or from the tons of manure that flow from dairies. Drinking water in many of these areas is also contaminated with the cancer- causing DBCP. A pesticide that also causes sterility, DBCP was banned in 1977 but persists in groundwater.
When tests show their wells are contaminated, water agencies regularly warn their customers to drink bottled water instead. But that can be expensive, particularly for residents of tiny rural districts, many of whom are impoverished farmworkers.
Once groundwater supplies are contaminated, small water districts rarely have the resources to put in new wells or provide the treatment necessary to bring their water up to safe standards. As The Bee's Susan Ferriss reported last week, the state has been less than diligent in helping districts address what is a serious health hazard in too many communities.
Frustrated activists in the Central Valley are pushing legislation that would declare clean drinking water a human right. Assembly Bill 1242 by Ira Ruskin, D-Los Altos, specifically establishes a human right to clean, affordable and accessible water. The bill, which has passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate, seeks to clarify existing state law that has long given priority to domestic water users. Proponents hope it gives health officials greater incentive and authority to address the problem of contamination.
But the bill does not appropriate any money to make sure that people get the clean water they need, and that's the real barrier here. Though state voters have passed bond measures that provide $230 million for water cleanup, and the federal government provides tens of millions more, a 2007 study estimated that it will cost $39 billion and take 20 years to bring drinking water in California up to federal health standards.
But not every remedy needs new money. The state is not using all the resources now at its disposal to protect public health. A simple example contained in The Bee story is illustrative.
Last year, the tiny Tulare community of Alpaugh was barred from obtaining a state grant to build an arsenic treatment system because of a temporary freeze placed on such grants. But when the freeze was lifted in April, no one from the state bothered to inform officials at Alpaugh.
More also needs to be done to address the source of pollution. Tulare is home to more dairies than any other county in the world, a major reason nitrate contamination of groundwater is so pervasive there. The state has the power to force dairies to control waste from their operations. The dangerously elevated levels of nitrate in groundwater suggest that's not being done.
Whether or not California declares that the delivery of clean water is a right rather than simply a public service, the state can and should be doing more to see that all its residents have access to the water they need to sustain their lives.#
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2133347.html
Health concerns grow over major weed killer
San Diego Union-Tribune-8/23/09
By Charles Duhigg
For decades, farmers, lawn care workers and professional green thumbs have relied on the popular weed killer atrazine to protect their crops, golf courses and manicured lawns.
But atrazine often washes into water supplies and has become among the most common contaminants in American reservoirs and other sources of drinking water.
Now, new research suggests that atrazine may be dangerous at lower concentrations than previously thought. Recent studies suggest that, even at concentrations meeting current federal standards, the chemical may be associated with birth defects, low birth weights and menstrual problems.
Laboratory experiments suggest that when animals are exposed to brief doses of atrazine before birth, they may become more vulnerable to cancer later.
An investigation by The New York Times has found that in some towns, atrazine concentrations in drinking water have jumped, sometimes for longer than a month. The reports produced by local water systems for residents often fail to reflect those higher concentrations.
Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency say Americans are not exposed to unsafe levels of atrazine. They say that current regulations are adequate to protect human health, and that the doses of atrazine coming through people's taps are safe — even when concentrations jump.
Some scientists and health advocates disagree. They argue that the recent studies offer enough concerns that the government should begin re-examining its regulations. They also say that local water systems — which have primary responsibility for the safety of drinking water — should be forced to monitor atrazine more frequently, in order to detect short-term increases and warn people when they occur.
The EPA has not cautioned pregnant women about the potential risks of atrazine so that they can consider using inexpensive home filtration systems. Though the agency is aware of new research suggesting risks, it will not formally review those studies until next year at the earliest. Federal scientists who have worked on atrazine say the agency has largely shifted its focus to other compounds.
Interviews with local water officials indicate that many of them are unaware that atrazine concentrations have sometimes jumped sharply in their communities. Other officials are concerned. Forty-three water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — recently sued atrazine's manufacturers to force them to pay for removing the chemical from drinking water.
Representatives of the EPA and Syngenta, the company that manufactures most of the atrazine sold, say that current federal standards are based on hundreds of studies showing Americans are safe. In a written statement, the EPA said that it applied large safety buffers in regulating atrazine and continued to monitor emerging science.
“The exposure that the agency allows under its atrazine drinking water regulations is at least 300 to 1,000 times lower than the level where the agency saw health effects in the most sensitive animal species tested,” the statement said. New studies, while raising important issues, do not “suggest a revision to EPA's current regulatory approach, which has been built on the review and consideration of hundreds of studies, including animal toxicity and human epidemiological studies dealing with atrazine,” the agency said.
Syngenta said the lawsuits were baseless.
The head of another government agency voiced apprehension.
“I'm very concerned about the general population's exposure to atrazine,” said Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. “We don't really know what these chemicals do to fetuses or prepubescent children.
“At a minimum, pregnant women should have access to accurate information about what's in their drinking water.”
Recent studies suggest that when adults and fetuses are exposed to even small doses of atrazine, like those allowed under law, they may suffer serious health effects. In particular, some scientists worry that atrazine may be safe during many periods of life but dangerous during brief windows of development, such as when a fetus is growing and pregnant women are told to drink lots of water.
“There are short, critical times — like when a fetus' brain is developing — when chemicals can have disastrous impacts, even in very small concentrations,” said Deborah Cory-Slechta, a professor at the University of Rochester in New York who has studied atrazine's effects on the brain and serves on the EPA's science advisory board. “The way the EPA tests chemicals can vastly underestimate risks.
“There's still a huge amount we don't know about atrazine.”
In recent years, five epidemiological studies published in peer-reviewed journals have found evidence suggesting that small amounts of atrazine in drinking water, including levels considered safe by federal standards, may be associated with birth defects — including skull and facial malformations and misshapen limbs — as well as low birth weights in newborns and premature births. Defects and premature births are leading causes of infant deaths.
Some of those studies suggest that as atrazine concentrations rise, the incidence of birth defects grows. One study — by researchers at Purdue University, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives — suggests that concentrations as small as 0.1 parts per billion may be associated with low birth weights.
Atrazine is just one example of what critics say are regulatory weaknesses in the protections of America's drinking water. Health and environmental advocates argue that the laws safeguarding drinking water and policing toxins are insufficient, and that the EPA is often too slow in evaluating emerging risks, not cautious enough and too unwilling to warn the public when health concerns arise.
In January, a Government Accountability Office report said that the EPA's system for assessing toxic chemicals was broken, and that the agency often failed to gather adequate information on whether chemicals posed health risks.
Forty percent of the nation's community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once last year, according to the Times analysis of EPA data, and dozens of chemicals have been detected at unsafe levels in drinking water.
Atrazine, which is sold under various brand names including AAtrex, is most commonly used on corn in farming states. It can also be found on lawns, gardens, parks and golf courses. Sometimes, the only way to avoid atrazine during summer months, when concentrations tend to rise as cropland is sprayed, is by forgoing tap water and relying on bottled water or using a home filtration system.
Some high-ranking EPA officials say there are concerns over atrazine, and that it, among other chemicals, is likely to be closely re-examined by the new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson.
“Atrazine is obviously very controversial and in widespread use, and it's one of a number of substances that we'll be taking a hard look at,” said Stephen Owens, who was recently confirmed as the EPA's assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides and toxic substances.#
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/aug/23/health-concerns-grow-over-major-weed-killer/
San Jose City camp water is tainted
San Jose Mercury News-8/21/09
By Sandra Gonzales
For the third time in four years, a routine check of the water wells used for drinking at the popular San Jose Family Camp uncovered E. coli.
So far, there have been no reports of illness. Officials closed the camp, in the Sierras near Yosemite National Park, as they repaired a tear in the main water tank liner where the E. coli was originating.
Although the camp's regular season is over, it was scheduled to remain open for weekend reservations through September.
Groups that had reservations this weekend were forced to cancel as repairs began Friday. The tank will be flushed and disinfected until all is clear, said Mona Favorite-Hill, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Parks and Recreation.
"We will not reopen until the water tests negative completely," Favorite-Hill said. "This is a precautionary measure."
Officials were unsure how long the camp would be closed but hoped to reopened it by next weekend.
Last year and in 2006, abnormal amounts of E. coli also were found at the camp.
Coliform bacteria can be found in the feces of animals, and in water, soil and vegetation. Ingesting the bacteria can cause vomiting and diarrhea.#
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13180408?source=rss
Guest view: Why clarity matters at Lake Tahoe
Tahoe Daily Tribune-8/22/09
By Joanne Marchetta
Opinion
Despite the implication of the term, clarity has its nuances. It can mean “the quality of being clearly expressed,” which in itself is critical for those of us in the forefront of the effort to restore and preserve Lake Tahoe.
After all, if our intentions are not clearly understood, we have difficulty gaining the support needed for success. Then, there are secondary meanings such as “clearness in what somebody is thinking,” or, “the quality of being clear in sound or image.” Finally, clarity can mean, “having a transparent quality.”
A primary meaning of the word “clear” is for something to be “free from anything that darkens or obscures.” All of these definitions and meanings have relevance to Lake Tahoe and its future.
A generation ago, before the development in the 1970s was going unchecked, Lake Tahoe's water clarity was measured at an average annual depth of about 100 feet. Today, the clarity stands somewhat obscured at about 70 feet.
Much of the collective effort over several decades at Lake Tahoe has centered around some day restoring the lake to that 100- foot standard. In the first decade of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program, initiated for Tahoe in the mid-1990s, about $1.4 billion has been spent on restoration efforts, about half of it on projects designed to improve water quality. Because of that investment, we appear to have turned a corner toward our goal.
The rate of lake clarity decline has flattened. Additionally, most of the indicators we use to gauge the overall environmental health of the basin are moving in a positive direction. With a more clear scientific understanding today of how to tackle the problem, we are confident that we can and will complete the job.
In July, the TRPA Governing Board endorsed the first comprehensive update to the original EIP. The update spells out about $2.5 billion in added environmental investment required to continue the commitment over the next decade. Water quality, watersheds and habitat improvements will account for more than half of that continued restoration work. We also are moving forward with an updated Lake Tahoe Regional Plan that will act as a blueprint for achieving environmental standards.
Without a doubt, $2.5 billion is a lot of money. The states of Nevada and California, the federal government, local jurisdictions and the private sector will be called upon in coming months and years to be financial partners in this effort in much the same way that they stepped up during the first decade of the EIP to invest in environmental projects throughout the basin. As we move forward, we owe it to all who have a stake in the lake to clearly articulate why clarity is important, what it will take to get there, and why the investment will be worth it.
Ten years of scientific research now reveals that lake clarity is a meaningful indicator of how compatibly we are living with the land. Fine sediment and nutrients flowing mostly from already developed sites reach the lake, reducing water clarity. The losses are tied to our past land use choices. A 50-year-old motel and blacktop parking area built in a stream zone, for example, probably ought never to have been located there.
Because of much better scientific information, we know that now. But many of these structures were built in that very fashion during the Squaw Olympics boom period. We built on 75 percent of marshes and 50 percent of natural meadow areas before TRPA had a regional environmental plan in place. This is one reason why land use in Tahoe is so tightly controlled.
There is a cap on what can be built or added in the basin, along with incentives to relocate existing development off of sensitive land. Let's be clear: The reason we have policies that incentivize moving structures from old properties to new is for the environmental benefits that are realized when old buildings are removed from land that can be restored to benefit the lake. The incentive is not as some suggest to foster new and additional development; it is to foster changes to the existing built environment for environmental gain. This is one way we can promote revitalization and restoration through private investment.
By compelling commercial and residential property owners to do erosion control work or “best management practices” (BMPs), we further benefit the lake. BMPs also account for most of the private investment in lake clarity needed under the EIP. We should also be clear that neither revitalization nor BMPs alone can be the panacea to achieve our environmental goals. But these measures, to be sure, are a critical step that each of us can take toward environmental progress.
The newly updated EIP charts a clear course of environmental investment for the Lake Tahoe Basin over the next 10 years. It includes critically important strategies for keeping the lake clear of aquatic invasive species such as quagga and zebra mussels. It spells out our plans to step up efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire by clearing our forests of built-up fuel. By realizing both environmental and economic goals, our communities will remain viable enough to meet their part of the commitment to invest in the continued environmental protection of Lake Tahoe.
We must clearly explain now to those who we are asking to re-up (and increase) their financial commitments to the basin why continued restoration and preservation will be worth it. Would you continue to invest if you held little hope for the vitality of the environment, economy, or social future of Lake Tahoe? The alternative — giving up on clarity after all we have accomplished thus far — is clearly not an option.#
Joanne Marchetta is executive director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20090822/OPINION/908219990/1059/NONE&parentprofile=1059
Ocean task force holds Alaska hearing on better stewardship
L.A. Times-8/22/09
By Kim Murphy
With the world's oceans facing mounting threats from pollution, climate change and overfishing, the Obama administration on Friday held the first of several public hearings intended to help it draft a coordinated policy for managing the health of the seas.
During their stop in Alaska, members of the White House's Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force said they expected to have a list of priorities for improving ocean stewardship in place by mid-September. By December, officials said, they planned to set out a broad strategy for sustainably allocating natural resources among interests such as fishing, oil and gas development, shipping, wind and tidal energy, boating and wildlife preservation.
"In every . . . ocean around the world, over-exploitation has led to widespread depletion and disruption, often despite good intentions," said Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the task force.
"This is not to say we can't use the ocean," she said. "We need to be able to use it. Just not use it up."
The Arctic Ocean faces the twin pressures of melting sea ice and increased industrial development, officials said, but still is pristine enough to protect if controls are put in place soon enough.
Alaska's continental shelf holds about a third of all U.S. coastal oil reserves, and about a fourth of the available gas. The state's coastal waters account for $5.8 billion a year worth of seafood, 60% of America's total catch. This is also the nation's last great wilderness, the refuge of animals such as grizzly bears, polar bears, wolves, salmon and bird species that are struggling or nonexistent elsewhere in the United States.
Some of the state's normally robust salmon stocks have experienced a significant and unexplained decline over the last year. Some have attributed it to massive industrial fishing in the Bering Sea, which often nets significant quantities of salmon as byproduct when targeting more abundant fish.
The United States has the largest ocean area of any country, managed by more than 20 different agencies administering 140 different laws.
"Each agency has statutory responsibility over pieces that will become ocean policy. So the first step is to try to set an overall framework," said task force Chairwoman Nancy Sutley of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "We need to look at how the federal government organizes itself in dealing with ocean marine resources and then attempt to set some priorities."#
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-alaska-oceans22-2009aug22,0,77150,print.story
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DWR’s California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader’s services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news . DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of California.
No comments:
Post a Comment